Our View: UMass Dartmouth spat edifies no one

There should be no cause for surprise that a change in administration of any large organization would result in some turnover.

Comment

southcoasttoday.com

Writer

Posted Apr. 23, 2014 at 12:01 AM

Posted Apr. 23, 2014 at 12:01 AM

» Social News

There should be no cause for surprise that a change in administration of any large organization would result in some turnover.

The change that began almost two years ago with Divina Grossman replacing Jean MacCormack as chancellor of UMass Dartmouth has been no exception, though the process has spilled into the public eye with a bit less dignity than one might hope for or expect from the educational institution with the biggest footprint — and imprint — on SouthCoast.

For every faculty member who has left or who will leave, there is a unique reason, though the administration's de-funding of several of its centers appears to have been a common thread for several of the high-profile departures, according to Clyde W. Barrow, the director of the Center for Policy Analysis, in his public retirement letter. (The letter can be found at www.SouthCoastToday.com on the same web page as our report on his announcement, April 22.)

Some who have moved on corroborate Barrow's claim, some reject it, but the administration has both the authority and the responsibility to make financial decisions especially in light of the $13 million deficit Grossman was faced with when she first took over.

Money is being saved, but do the centers have an impact and return greater than the simple dollars and cents? Will the loss of institutional knowledge and experience have an effect that can't be seen on the balance sheet? Time will tell.

The measure of effectiveness will be the success of the university's fundamental missions of educating students, contributing to the community at large and advancing research.

Students may or may not continue to choose UMass Dartmouth and to serve in the region's communities, and SouthCoast may or may not benefit from economic impacts that are not so easy to measure.

The administration's consideration of individual centers' budgets and bottom-line impacts on the university's budget — positive, negative or neutral — might have rubbed directors the wrong way, but the course of action is the reality, and their responses are their own.

Barrow has a reputation for being outspoken and critical of administration actions, even expressed as op-eds on these pages, one as recently as last month, and to one degree or another, his legacy will not be separated from his reputation.

He exercised his right to take a final swipe with his retirement letter, but we wonder whether a softer message might not have prevented the targets of his criticism from being so willing to respond with a similar tone.

Whether his words will be the last is yet to be determined, but we would hope that whatever words follow — from whatever party — would be of a more edifying nature.